Skip to content


V. Venkatarama Chettiar Vs. M. Duraiswami Mudaliar and Co., by Managing Partner Rathnavelu Mudaliar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1963)1MLJ125
AppellantV. Venkatarama Chettiar
RespondentM. Duraiswami Mudaliar and Co., by Managing Partner Rathnavelu Mudaliar
Excerpt:
- t.n. district police act, 1859 [act no. 24/1859]. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); [a.p. shah,c.j., f.m. ibrajhim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to article 309 of the constitution., the rule is not assailed on the ground of lack of competence. it is challenged only on the ground that it is violative of articles 14 and..........when the application for eviction was filed admittedly the respondent was not the owner of any business premises in madras city. it is alleged that he had entered into an agreement for purchasing the building in which he is now carrying on his business of printer and publisher at the time when he filed the application for eviction. the date when he filed the application for eviction was 21st november, 1960. the date of agreement of purchase was nth october, 1960. the sale deed was actually obtained on 26th november, 1960. the order of eviction was passed sometime after 26th november, 1960. mr. venkatarama iyer's contention is that before the controller could order eviction of a tenant at the instance of a landlord, who alleged that he did not own any non-residential building of his.....
Judgment:

Ganapatia Pillai, J.

1. This revision is directed against the concurrent order of the appellate authority and the Rent Controller, Madras, whereby they granted an order of eviction against the petitioner-tenant who is carrying on a potato trade in Malayaperumal Street in premises which belong to the respondent. The respondent himself is a businessman carrying on the business of printer and publisher of text-books and other periodicals. The grounds for eviction were two: (1) that the tenant had sub-let a portion of the building for vegetable sellers at a certain rent per diem and (2) that the landlord himself did not possess a non-residential building in Madras for carrying on his business. On the first point it was found by the Rent Controller that a pial in the building was being let out by the tenant to an onion merchant for vending onions in baskets. It is clear from the facts proved in the case that this would not amount to sub-letting as there was neither exclusive occupation of the portion by the sub-tenant nor any ouster of the tenant himself of the occupation of that portion. A Bench of this Court consisting of Rajamannar, C.J. and Krishna-swami Nayudu, J., in Adimoola Nadar V. Ranganathan (1949) 3 M.L.J.32 ruled that where a tenant allowed a vegetable merchant to keep baskets of vegetables in a room in the premises on payment of a small fee for each basket there was no sub-letting of the premises or any portion thereof. That principle would apply here and therefore both the lower Courts were wrong in holding that there was sub-letting of a portion of the premises to an onion merchant who was allowed to sell onions from a portion of the building on a daily rent of eight annas.

2. But on the second ground I am unable to agree with Mr. Venkatarama Iyer's persistent argument that the lower Courts were wrong. It will be seen from the record that on the date when the application for eviction was filed admittedly the respondent was not the owner of any business premises in Madras City. It is alleged that he had entered into an agreement for purchasing the building in which he is now carrying on his business of printer and publisher at the time when he filed the application for eviction. The date when he filed the application for eviction was 21st November, 1960. The date of agreement of purchase was nth October, 1960. The sale deed Was actually obtained on 26th November, 1960. The order of eviction was passed sometime after 26th November, 1960. Mr. Venkatarama Iyer's contention is that before the Controller could order eviction of a tenant at the instance of a landlord, who alleged that he did not own any non-residential building of his own in the City of Madras for carrying on his business, the Controller ought to have been satisfied on the date when he passed the order of eviction that that condition was continued to be fulfilled by the petitioner. The point is not covered by any specific provision in the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The section merely speaks of a right of a landlord to apply for eviction on this ground and in defining this right it merely reads as though he was entitled to this right provided he did not own a building of his own on the date when he applied to the Controller for eviction. The requirement as to bona fides,--Mr. Venkatarama Iyer's contention was--implied that this condition must continue to exist right down to the date when the order of eviction was passed. I am free to confess that there is some force in the contention of Mr. Venkatarama Iyer, though I am unable to find any authority for it in the language of the enactment. In this case I am not called upon to give a decided opinion on the point because even while the application for eviction was pending, an order for eviction against the landlord with reference to the opposite house which he was using as a godown for his business had been passed. It meant that the premises which the landlord was using for the purpose pf his business included both the premises which he purchased on 26th November, 1960 and the opposite building which he was using as a godown. Certainly if the subsequent event like the acquisition of a building on 26th November, 1960 should be taken into account by the Controller in deciding whether an order of eviction should be made under Section 10(3)(a)(iii), the fact that the landlord himself was evicted from a godown which he was occupying for his business purposes should also be taken into account. Mr. Venkatarama Iyer contended that in such a case the right to file an application for eviction would not fall under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) but would fall under another provision of the Act, namely, Section 10(3)(c). This contention was not pressed before or mentioned to either of the lower Courts and therefore I did not permit Mr. Venkatarama Iyer to raise this contention. I find nothing illegal or unjust in the orders of the lower Court.

3. The Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. The petitioner will have four month time from to-day to vacate the premises.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //